WHY make a fake GCHQ slide?

[Michael Best]

Spoken like a true researcher, free of fatalism, beyond bias and too pure
to prejudge an issue.

On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 10:45 AM, Travis Biehn <tbiehn at gmail.com> wrote:

> Neither goal is achievable?
>
> -Travis
>
> On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 10:36 AM, Michael Best <themikebest at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Asking to help explore the possibility and look for evidence that could
>> either prove it or disprove it, more like.
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 10:32 AM, Travis Biehn <tbiehn at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Mike,
>>>
>>> Nice troll,
>>>
>>> My point is that specifically the value of this 'navel gazing' or
>>> hypothetical conversation is very limited. Since you have not proven it,
>>> what data do you ask us to look at? This entire conversation asks us to
>>> suspend our disbelief in order to discuss the possible motivations of an
>>> unnamed attacker who faked a GCHQ slide.
>>>
>>> From the beginning I've maintained it was asinine and pointless, at
>>> worst you're riling up the neophytes who don't understand what's going on.
>>>
>>> -Travis
>>>
>>> On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 10:11 AM, Michael Best <themikebest at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I never said I proved the slide is fake, Travis. In fact, I've said
>>>> several times that I've all done is prove that it could be fake. I said it
>>>> in the mailing list and in the original posts on my site.
>>>>
>>>> *Please* try to read what you're criticizing/arguing/responding to. I
>>>> know it can be hard, or boring, or frustrating, but it's essential to a
>>>> dialogue that you respond to what the other person/side/position said and
>>>> not confabulate something (as is human nature) or worse yet, build a
>>>> strawman.
>>>>
>>>> Forcing your targets to *ahem* 'go dark' by instilling paranoia is
>>>>> exactly the opposite of what 'an IA / TLA' wants.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So categorical, monolithic and single minded! One might even say
>>>> "overly so" lol
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 10:02 AM, Travis Biehn <tbiehn at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Mike,
>>>>> You haven't proven that they were fake. Being able to counterfeit a
>>>>> dollar bill does not all dollar bills counterfeit make. It's been one giant
>>>>> navel gazing exercise.
>>>>>
>>>>> These disclosures only serve to further confirm opsec procedures long
>>>>> recommended and employed. This slide is an advertisement for Tor (which
>>>>> some hold to be a government honeypot, I do not.)
>>>>>
>>>>> Forcing your targets to *ahem* 'go dark' by instilling paranoia is
>>>>> exactly the opposite of what 'an IA / TLA' wants.
>>>>>
>>>>> -Travis
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 9:55 AM, Michael Best <themikebest at gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I think Snowden has become such a folk hero that some people may leap
>>>>>> to defend what seems like an attack on him without taking as much time to
>>>>>> look at the data/posts as they would otherwise.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 9:46 AM, Shelley <shelley at misanthropia.org>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On October 12, 2015 6:20:46 AM Michael Best <themikebest at gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I tried to list their motives under the GCHQ/UK motives, who would
>>>>>>>> be more
>>>>>>>> likely to fake the slide anyway and are the ones alleged of having
>>>>>>>> leaked
>>>>>>>> documents to the Independent on behalf of JTRIG, are a fairly likely
>>>>>>>> candidate.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, you did list a number of possibilities.  It sometimes seems as
>>>>>>> though the same few people do not read and/or comprehend responses before
>>>>>>> replying to them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Faking a slide like this would be a good way to inspire paranoia
>>>>>>>> and divide a community, no? It got Cryptome to post a notice on
>>>>>>>> their site
>>>>>>>> for a week or two, alerting people to the possibility that they'd
>>>>>>>> been
>>>>>>>> targeted by GCHQ by visiting Cryptome. Sounds like JTRIG-ish
>>>>>>>> paranoia, no?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Agreed.  It could be an effective way to deter visitors to Cryptome,
>>>>>>> possibly to divert attention away from something posted there around the
>>>>>>> time this all began.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -S
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 9:10 AM, Georgi Guninski <
>>>>>>>> guninski at guninski.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joint_Threat_Research_Intelligence_Group&oldid=670966374
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> > Joint Threat Research Intelligence Group
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> > In June 2015, NSA files published by Glenn Greenwald revealed new
>>>>>>>> > details about JTRIG's work at covertly manipulating online
>>>>>>>> > communities.[6]
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> > On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 08:58:33AM -0400, Michael Best wrote:
>>>>>>>> > > >
>>>>>>>> > > > So assuming Snowden "borrowed" the slide from the NSA and he
>>>>>>>> didn't get
>>>>>>>> > >
>>>>>>>> > > owned, the slide is _REAL_.
>>>>>>>> > >
>>>>>>>> > >
>>>>>>>> > > I don't think I understand your mean, if we assuming it's real,
>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>> > follows
>>>>>>>> > > that it's real? I think I walked into a language barrier.
>>>>>>>> > >
>>>>>>>> > >
>>>>>>>> > > > Having in mind Snowden likely have large pile of slides, if
>>>>>>>> he got
>>>>>>>> > > > owned, likely all/the majority of them would likely be fake.
>>>>>>>> > > > Is this plausible?
>>>>>>>> > >
>>>>>>>> > >
>>>>>>>> > > Not necessarily, that's not how disinfo works a lot of the time.
>>>>>>>> > >
>>>>>>>> > > And did you missed the us-natsec trolling about the eu
>>>>>>>> appearing to
>>>>>>>> > > > trust Snowden's slides (though sometimes they can't prove it)?
>>>>>>>> > >
>>>>>>>> > >
>>>>>>>> > > No, there just wasn't much to respond to.
>>>>>>>> > >
>>>>>>>> > > On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 8:55 AM, Georgi Guninski <
>>>>>>>> guninski at guninski.com>
>>>>>>>> > > wrote:
>>>>>>>> > >
>>>>>>>> > > > So assuming Snowden "borrowed" the slide from the NSA and he
>>>>>>>> didn't get
>>>>>>>> > > > owned, the slide is _REAL_.
>>>>>>>> > > >
>>>>>>>> > > > Having in mind Snowden likely have large pile of slides, if
>>>>>>>> he got
>>>>>>>> > > > owned, likely all/the majority of them would likely be fake.
>>>>>>>> > > >
>>>>>>>> > > > Is this plausible?
>>>>>>>> > > >
>>>>>>>> > > > And did you missed the us-natsec trolling about the eu
>>>>>>>> appearing to
>>>>>>>> > > > trust Snowden's slides (though sometimes they can't prove it)?
>>>>>>>> > > >
>>>>>>>> > > >
>>>>>>>> > > > On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 08:22:37AM -0400, Michael Best wrote:
>>>>>>>> > > > > No but as I and others have noted, he didn't look at all of
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> > materials
>>>>>>>> > > > > he handed over to journalists and couldn't possibly be
>>>>>>>> expected to
>>>>>>>> > > > remember
>>>>>>>> > > > > all the ones he did see well enough to possibly be able to
>>>>>>>> ID this
>>>>>>>> > one as
>>>>>>>> > > > > altered or forged. He was only able to argue against the
>>>>>>>> other
>>>>>>>> > documents
>>>>>>>> > > > > because he had never been in touch with the outlet
>>>>>>>> releasing them,
>>>>>>>> > > > contrary
>>>>>>>> > > > > to their apparent belief.
>>>>>>>> > > > >
>>>>>>>> > > > > On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 8:19 AM, Georgi Guninski <
>>>>>>>> > guninski at guninski.com>
>>>>>>>> > > > > wrote:
>>>>>>>> > > > >
>>>>>>>> > > > > > On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 07:50:14AM -0400, Michael Best
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> > > > > > > As I think I said in the other thread, less specific
>>>>>>>> charges that
>>>>>>>> > > > require
>>>>>>>> > > > > > > more specific proof and almost never leveled before a
>>>>>>>> trial is
>>>>>>>> > set,
>>>>>>>> > > > > > because
>>>>>>>> > > > > > > it forces the issue to be tried in the court of public
>>>>>>>> opinion,
>>>>>>>> > > > where a
>>>>>>>> > > > > > lot
>>>>>>>> > > > > > > of information can't be released lest it spoil an
>>>>>>>> investigation
>>>>>>>> > or
>>>>>>>> > > > > > > potential trial. There's also the fact that there'd be
>>>>>>>> little to
>>>>>>>> > > > gain at
>>>>>>>> > > > > > > this point by alleging that the slides are fake since
>>>>>>>> there
>>>>>>>> > would be
>>>>>>>> > > > few
>>>>>>>> > > > > > > people to believe it,
>>>>>>>> > > > > > >
>>>>>>>> > > > > > > "NSA hasn't said it's fake" doesn't seem like a strong
>>>>>>>> argument -
>>>>>>>> > > > > > > especially for a non-NSA slide. And again - *Snowden
>>>>>>>> himself* has
>>>>>>>> > > > accused
>>>>>>>> > > > > > > outlets of releasing slides attributed to him that *he
>>>>>>>> says he
>>>>>>>> > did
>>>>>>>> > > > not
>>>>>>>> > > > > > > provide*.
>>>>>>>> > > > > > >
>>>>>>>> > > > > > Likely the NSA would distribute fake slides just to
>>>>>>>> discredit
>>>>>>>> > Snowden.
>>>>>>>> > > > > >
>>>>>>>> > > > > > Does Snowden deny the authencity of this slide?
>>>>>>>> > > > > >
>>>>>>>> > > > > > This slide appeared in _too many_ news AFAICT to get
>>>>>>>> unnoticed.
>>>>>>>> > > > > >
>>>>>>>> > > >
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Twitter <https://twitter.com/tbiehn> | LinkedIn
>>>>> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/travisbiehn> | GitHub
>>>>> <http://github.com/tbiehn> | TravisBiehn.com
>>>>> <http://www.travisbiehn.com> | Google Plus
>>>>> <https://plus.google.com/+TravisBiehn>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Twitter <https://twitter.com/tbiehn> | LinkedIn
>>> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/travisbiehn> | GitHub
>>> <http://github.com/tbiehn> | TravisBiehn.com
>>> <http://www.travisbiehn.com> | Google Plus
>>> <https://plus.google.com/+TravisBiehn>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Twitter <https://twitter.com/tbiehn> | LinkedIn
> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/travisbiehn> | GitHub
> <http://github.com/tbiehn> | TravisBiehn.com <http://www.travisbiehn.com> |
> Google Plus <https://plus.google.com/+TravisBiehn>
>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/html
Size: 14060 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/attachments/20151012/19daec0e/attachment-0002.txt>